COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Butt v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 3
PARTIES: BUTT, Christopher Roy v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO CCA 2740/2017 DELIVERED ON: 28 March 2018 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 6 March 2018 JUDGMENT OF: Estcourt and Pearce JJ, Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Sentence – Relevant factors – Nature and circumstances of offender – Mental disorder – Major depressive disorder – Consideration of consequences of disorder on relevant sentencing factors – Nature and effect of disorder not such as to make sentence manifestly excessive.
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Grounds for interference – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Attack in public with metal implement causing grievous bodily harm – No error in head sentence of three years' imprisonment with twelve months suspended but long non-parole period made sentence manifestly excessive.
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 17. Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: Appellant: In person Respondent: A Norton Solicitors: Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2018] TASCCA 3 Number of paragraphs: 71
Serial No 3/2018
File No CCA 2740/2017
CHRISTOPHER ROY BUTT v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
ESTCOURT J (Dissenting) PEARCE J PORTER AJ 28 March 2018
Order of the Court
Appeal allowed.
Sentenced imposed on 11 September 2017 quashed.
Appellant sentenced to imprisonment for three years from 4 September 2017.
Twelve months of that sentence suspended for three years from 4 September 2017.
Appellant not to be eligible for parole until he has served 12 months of the term.
Serial No 3/2018
File No CCA 2470/2017
CHRISTOPHER ROY BUTT v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
ESTCOURT J 28 March 2018
The appeal
The appellant, Christopher Roy Butt, has appealed against a sentence of three years' imprisonment with 12 months suspended and a non-parole period of half of the operative sentence, imposed on him by Slicer AJ on 11 September 2017. The sentence was imposed for the crimes of causing grievous bodily harm and assault contrary to the Criminal Code, ss 172 and 184. The suspended portion of the sentence was subject to conditions that the appellant "commit no crime or offence of harm to the person or property", for a period of three years, and "undertakes any behavioural or psychological programs as reasonably directed by an authorised prison officer whilst he is in prison".
The principal ground of appeal is that the sentence is manifestly excessive. However specific errors are asserted in the notice of appeal, namely that the learned sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the appellant's plea of guilty, his previous good record, his progress towards rehabilitation, and the effect of his Major…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Butt v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Butt v Tasmania [2018] TASCCA 3
Case
[2018] TASCCA 3
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Butt and others, appealed their sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Tasmania following convictions for various offences. The central dispute on appeal concerned whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the applicants' mental health conditions, specifically major depressive disorder, when determining the appropriate sentences.
The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive due to the sentencing judge's alleged failure to properly consider the impact of the applicants' mental disorders on relevant sentencing factors. This involved assessing whether the nature and effect of these disorders were such that they should have led to a different sentencing outcome.
The Court considered the evidence presented regarding the applicants' mental health, including expert psychiatric reports. It was held that while the sentencing judge was required to consider the impact of the mental disorders, the evidence did not establish that the nature or effect of these disorders rendered the sentences demonstrably unjust or disproportionate. The Court applied established principles of sentencing, weighing the gravity of the offences against the personal circumstances of the offenders, including their mental health. The Court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered these factors and that the sentences were not manifestly excessive.